Deduce inferences from true premises. It’s as simple as that. When you do, I will accept your conclusion as true.
I posted a transcript. Show me a reference to “combat troops”.
Tu quoque, actually.
Inasmuch as I favor opening the borders, repealing all prohibition legislation, ending corporate welfare, and legalizing prostitution — I don’t think the conservatives would claim me. Let me give you a chance to ignore yet again what I’ve already explained to a fare-thee-well: both Coulter and the interviewer were wrong.
Agreed, Sev. It seems that some here consider that no matter which words the guy used to point out her wrongness, he would still have been wrong himself.
It is this kind of absurd equivalence-drawing that has the rest of the industrialisd democratic world looking at US politics and surreptitiously smirking at each other, twirling their finger near their temple and giving a quiet whistle.
I think you’ve just exactly proved my point. Canada did not send combat troops to Vietnam. Which is what any rational person would believe both Coulter and the CBC interviewer were talking about.
Glad to see your nitpicking sensitivity is still set extremely high. Does a spelling error on my part equate to my point being wrong? Thought not…
Ever think that if you’re looking around for the lunatic fringe and can’t find it, it’s you?
And let me tell you again - I am not ignoring anything you’ve said, just disagreeing with you and in disbelief about your motivations.
Desmostylus, do you ever have anything to add to a Liberal thread other than “you’re crazy/take your meds”? it makes you look like a pro-bowl asshole and you’re beating it into the fucking ground. Thanks.
And once again, Lib, manages to derail a thread and make it all about him.
No argument’s too silly. No logic too devious. No semantic wrangling too specious. No, no matter how, the means are justified by the end, i.e., for Lib to take center stage and tilt at windmills to the tune of 20,000+ mostly deranged posts.
This “debate” was settled before it started. Hell, even that other nutbag, Coulter, conceded as much by “never getting back” to the interviewer in order to dispute the issue at hand. Which, again, to anyone with a couple of spare braincells to rub together, is quite easy to grasp: namely, that within the context of their exchange, she was utterly and completetly wrong. All else is petty bullshit. Which of course, is Lib’s tiresome specialty.
Insert visual here ---->:::::Lib masturbating like a motherfucker:::::<-------
The only thing better than Ann Coulter getting owned is that the Canadian broadcaster took pride in proving that Canada didn’t help its ally. Priceless.
Yeah, we’re pretty glad we didn’t get sucked into Vietnam too, with all its accompanying scars.
As far as the derailed semantic debate we’re into now, I think it’s an interesting debate strategy to claim that not only do your words mean what you intend, but any other possible meanings of the words that anyone could lay upon them, covering you under any circumstance. It’s idiotic, but interesting.
No more like pride that he cuaght her being as uninformed in her assertions as usual. Showing that for some reason she is an authority despite having no knowledge in what she speaks of.
That we didn’t get involved in a useless costly venture and asserted our own soverignty be declining that mess is beside the point.
It’s interesting how Ann picked up on Canada not getting involved in the invasion of Iraq, but somehow conveniently forgets what Canada did for the U.S. immediately following Sept. 11. As a country and Canadians, we did everything we could think of, and we cried for you. How dare she question whether Canadians are allies or not because, as a sovereign nation, we chose not to follow along when we felt the U.S. was not on solid footing.
Hey, we don’t hold William Shatner against you, please don’t hold Annie of Green Goebbels against us, OK?
Since when has reason, reality, or common sense ever been in Coulter’s best interest? She sells more books by pandering to the ignorant who like people to agree with them and tell them who to hate and who to be scared of and don’t ever challenge them.
Damn straight. Coulter should apologize to the familes of the four Canadian soldiers who got blown up by an American pilot in Afghanistan for her dumbass suggestion that Canadians are not as friendly to the U.S. as some imagined fantasy-world of an alternate 1960s and 70s where Canadian combat troops were helping to hunt down the VC and NVA.
Christ. When you act like such an asshole to your friends, no wonder you have so few of them.
Look, it is obvious Coulter thought that Canada the country sent troops as representatives of Canada as part of Canadian policy. She had ample opportunity to clarify if she meant Candian citizens fighting for America…peacekeepers…whatever. She didn’t, she was wrong. It ain’t the end of the world to admit she was wrong on this one point.
I don’t think you know what they were discussing. After all, you don’t seem to know what we’re discussing here. Gomiboy said they were talking about “combat troops”. I asked him to point out the phrase “combat troops”. What they were in fact talking about were troops. Just troops. Canada sent troops. It did not send as many as Coulter likely thought, nor did it send none as the CBC guy said. Obtuse is as obtuse does, I reckon.